Killer obstructive DM, nintendo hard games, and shift in gamer culture

[Pex]

Jerk DMs and jerk players will exist regardless of any rules, but that's not an excuse not to have rules. All stone walls having the same climb DC is a simplification. The players have something to build towards if climbing stone walls is important to them, and the DM doesn't have to think of a number for every stone wall that will ever exist in the campaign. If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium. Only the jerk player says the DM is Doing It Wrong just as it's only the jerk DM who makes every stone wall DC No to climb forever because he doesn't want PCs to climb walls. They don't matter when it comes to wanting guidelines on the DC to climb a stone wall.

[kyoryu]

So what do I do when the DM is using dumb levels of DCs and "roll to tie shoes" because he has no concept of statistical success rates and the DMG just says "DM decides"? I mean, it's too late now. The guy rage quit dming 5e because he couldn't handle people doing their best to avoid rolling and I don't play 5e with DMs who have less than 5 - 10 years dming xp. But for, you know, future reference when 6e shows up in 2 - 5 years and maybe has the same issue.

You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.

Jerk DMs and jerk players will exist regardless of any rules, but that's not an excuse not to have rules. All stone walls having the same climb DC is a simplification. The players have something to build towards if climbing stone walls is important to them, and the DM doesn't have to think of a number for every stone wall that will ever exist in the campaign. If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium. Only the jerk player says the DM is Doing It Wrong just as it's only the jerk DM who makes every stone wall DC No to climb forever because he doesn't want PCs to climb walls. They don't matter when it comes to wanting guidelines on the DC to climb a stone wall.

You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.

[Jay R]

There is a lot of context missing in this story. Are custom magic items like that bag common in this DM's world? If so, would the party have reason to know that such items exist? Had the players ever encountered that type of item OOC before? Were the players given a chance to roll to see if the PCs to know that the items exist, even if the players didn't know?

Yes, there is a lot of context missing; I will try to add some of it. Buy you have implicitly (and accidentally) added a lot of modern context that doesn't apply to the early culture of this 1975 game of original D&D.

Nobody in the group, including the DM, had even heard of D&D three months before this occurred. Of roughly twelve players, only four owned the rules, and virtually all of the rest had never even read the rules. There was an idea floating around (not universally accepted) that players who weren't DMs shouldn't ever look at the rules at all, or they would have lots of meta-knowledge that their characters wouldn't know. A few years later, when AD&D first game out, Gygax specifically said that players should not read anything but the Players' Handbook, for exactly that reason.

The assumption of the game was that adventurers were extremely rare, that magic items were extremely rare, that there were no magic shops, and that there were no merchants who could tell you what kinds of items existed. Most magic items were found, in the dungeons of long-abandoned castles, or in the hoards of dragons who had had them for centuries. High level spells like Legend Lore or Commune were available for higher level characters to find out about such things.

We knew that deep in the forest was a ruined castle, and that people who entered it almost never came back out. There were rumors that great treasures were there, but what kind of treasures? Nobody knew.

The DMs I knew believed that custom items were essential, to keep players who had read the rules from knowing what items might exist. [I was one of the four who owned and had read the rules, and I was not a DM.] That bag was one of three custom items I knew of by the end of my fourth adventure.

None of the players had ever encountered any magic item OOC before, unless you count descriptions of items in novels. This bag was as unknown to them as a bag of holding or a bag of tricks.

Nobody had the idea that characters (and therefore players) had the right to know what kind of items existed.

So at the very least, the players did not expect to know every kind of magic item that existed. Did they know about custom items? I have no idea, but at that point in the game (my third or fourth adventure) I knew of at least three.

They did try to research it. They just researched the wrong thing.

As far as I know, there was no roll. There couldn't be, unless the DM invented that rule on the spot; there was no equivalent of a Spellcraft or Knowledge(arcana) skill. Most characters were assumed to have grown up on a farm or in a small village, or as a cleric's acolyte or magic-user's apprentice. They would have no knowledge of the mystic lore of bygone ages. Magic was supposed to be mysterious. The game was learning about the world through exploration.

If the answer to all of those is yes, then that is on the players (and apparently a bad roll) and the DM didn't set out to screw them over. If the answer to any is no, then that is all on the DM. It is the DM's responsibility to explain the world to their players, give their players a chance to understand the world when new things are encountered, and understand that the PCs actually live in the world and have more knowledge than the players.

First of all, the DM did not "set out to screw them over". The DM didn't plan this action when he invented the magic item. The idea came entirely from the player with the ex-paladin PC.

The DM told them that they woke up under the care of a cleric. The cleric told them that a man identifying himself as a paladin brought them in and paid to have them resurrected, and then left before they woke up. When they tried to use their items, the items didn't work. Telling them anything else would have been meta-knowledge. More than that, telling them what their characters didn't know would have been the DM setting out to screw over the player of the ex-paladin.

There was only one person with any knowledge of what happened to them out there (the ex-paladin), and it never occurred to them to go looking for him. [I thought that the fact that the paladin left without waiting to see them recover should have been a huge clue, but they didn't seem to notice.]

They spent all of their efforts trying to figure out how being turned to stone could make their items stop working. That was their assumption. The DM never told them that's what happened. He just told them that the items didn't work. I wasn't there when they tested the items, so I can't be sure, but that DM was usually very precise about his wording. So I suspect he would say things like "That wand in your hand doesn't work," and never identifying it as the wand they had had a week earlier.

In any event, the DM didn't set out to screw the players. He simply didn't prevent another payer from screwing them. He adjudicated it fairly and honestly, telling them what their characters knew, and withholding what their characters did not know.

[Zarrgon]

i'd say it's not much that they must be justified, but that they must be consistent. the player wants to know that there is some underlying logic.
which i agree it's an illusion. in the end the two guards had very difficult dc to bribe, because one was a slacker and the other was an incorruptible patriot, or perhaps because the dm didn't want you to succeed the second time. either you prepare yourself to listen to an hour-long explanation of the guard backstory, or you decide whether you trust the dm or not.

The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?

If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium.

This touches on both my Player Acceptance and Hostile Player points.

One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

The problem is that the player might not be able to figure out the DC AND the character might not be able to roll to know or rolls and fails. So what then? Does the player just accept the that DC is X, but they don't know why? Do they whine and cry and try and force the DM to tell then the secret of the DC? Do they turn around and attack the game rules because their character does not know something? Do they ever get to "accept it and move on"?

And the Hostile Player is just down right crazy as they sit there and say "everything the DM does is against me!"

[NigelWalmsley]

Of course he will, and at that point he's no longer that "guy who saw Stranger Things." He's evolved into an adept DM who is beginning to feel comfortable making his own mechanics decisions. Until he's reached that point, though, he has plenty of published content to work with that provides these things for him.

Yes, like the lists of DCs. Your point appears to be "we don't need published examples because the people who can't make decisions on their own have published examples", which astute observes may note is entirely nonsensical.

And even if you had your DC list, how long before you encounter a task that isn't on it? Despite the pages of DC charts in the 3e DMG, I can think of dozens of things that aren't covered by it. Or are covered by it but I'd have to come up with a reasonable circumstance modifier on the fly.

That's a false choice. Yes, even with guidelines, you will need to exercise judgement. But having guidelines makes it easier to use good judgement. If you know that climbing a rough wall is DC 15, it's going to be easier for you to give a good answer when a player asks "hey, what's the DC to climb this smooth wall".

If the players disagree with the DM, who is just playing by the rules and deciding his own DCs and either using the guidelines or not, they're the ones creating conflict.

No, they aren't. The DM is creating conflict by privileging his ideas for the game unduly. The idea that the DM just gets to make up whatever he wants and the players just need to deal with it is incredibly toxic for the game. It is by far the single most effective way to destroy a gaming group.

It comes from a mindset common among players that they attempt an action by making a roll. If you want to do something and the DC would work out to be something impossible, I'll tell you you try and it doesn't work, or something along those lines. No dice involved. Sure, I can say the DC is 50 or whatever, if that makes you happy. It's the same thing.

No, it isn't. If you can do it by getting a bigger bonus, that is different from not being able to do it. Like, obviously. I'm really confused about how you don't get this, because "things that are different are not the same" is the kind of insight so obvious I'm tempted to pull out a dictionary.

Well, then you should note you have met players like that: the exact ones you mentioned.

No, I've encountered bad design. The players who object to getting screwed over by badly written rules are not bad players, and your implication that they are is insulting both to them, and to anyone who might care about the quality of the rules. No matter what side of the screen you're on, you are served by the game working well, and harmed by it working poorly. Arbitrary challenges that require players to "go along" harm the game.

Just look at the idea that the DM must provide "context" to the players. That some how the DM must stop the game and explain everything to the players, likely taking hours. It is an impossible standard to hold a DM too.

Wow, imagine that. When playing a game about exploring a fictional world, you might want to know how things in that world work. I must say I've never before heard "the players want to learn more about the game world" described as a problem, but there you are.

When the hostile player forces the DM to say "sigh, bad magic itmes that kill you have a white skull on them", then an hour later a player finds a sword with a white skull on it they leap up and say "Ha, DM I don't touch the sword, thanks for warning me about it!" .

Oh, look, the player learned about the world and used that information to make an informed decision that effectively represented their characters interests. Once again, I cannot imagine how this is supposed to be a problem.

The idea that all DCs must be justified is kind of exactly this. And it's an illusion. If the GM wants the lock to be DC 50, it'll be DC 50. They'll just have to look up what modifiers make that and then say that.

That's not how people work. There is absolutely a difference between "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it" and "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want". If you provide examples to anchor people, they will tend to stay close to those examples.

Now, if a GM is arbitrarily using dumb levels of DC to control/railroad/etc? Different story. Don't play with that guy. And, yeah, that is the right answer. No set of rules can make someone that is a jerk into not-a-jerk.

Of course not. But what rules can do is help people who are well-intentioned, but have limited levels of skill, patience, or system mastery make better decisions. We don't have pre-written monster stats because it's impossible to create your own monsters, we have them because we think that having established challenges makes it easier to run the game, and that even if you are going to create your own monsters, having examples makes that easier.

The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong.

Once again, this is nonsense. Wanting the world to behave in predictable, consistent ways is not only right, it is a necessary precondition to effective roleplay. If the results of your actions aren't consistent, you can't make informed decisions, which is necessary to effectively answer "what would my character do".

One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

Oh no! A player cares about the game, and wants to understand how things work. I can only assume they will use this knowledge for evil, perhaps by adapting their plan to suit the particular circumstances they face. Clearly, they should be kicked out of the group for refusing to "go along".

[Telok]

You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.

Well I tend to have a rather hard time convincing people of stuff, even when I provide evidence and references. Doubly so when it's a new DM who is having to write his own skill DCs on the fly and thinks he's doing great because he has no idea how probabilites work.

Actually now that I think about it my talking to him may have been part of why he quit DMing. So that's maybe a bit counter productive?

You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.

That's a bit of a strawman because Pex didn't say that all stone walls should have the same DC. He doesn't know what the baseline assumption of the game is for any particular wall and would like to know what the people who wrote the game intended beyond "DM makes up a random number".

You can default to 15 because that's the number in the middle and therefore the normal/average DC. You could want the PCs to be extra heroic and make it automatic. You could have a bad back and make it 21 because climbing is hard (yes, I played with that guy). And I could DM an AL game and make all rolls to talk to NPCs 21+1d4 becausr convincing people is hard to do.

[Zarrgon]

Wow, imagine that. When playing a game about exploring a fictional world, you might want to know how things in that world work. I must say I've never before heard "the players want to learn more about the game world" described as a problem, but there you are.

But your crossing here: how is exploring the role playing fictional world tied to the games mechanical crunch? Are you really "exploring" to find out the mechanical details of the game? Are you really going to a new land and saying "hum, wonder what the DCto climb that tree is?"

Oh, look, the player learned about the world and used that information to make an informed decision that effectively represented their characters interests. Once again, I cannot imagine how this is supposed to be a problem.

Again you are crossing things here. You seem to be describing a dull mechanical game where the players find out mechanical game information....and then what? Metagame?

That's not how people work. There is absolutely a difference between "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it" and "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want". If you provide examples to anchor people, they will tend to stay close to those examples.

Um...if "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it", then is not "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want"? You seem to be saying the same thing.

Of course not. But what rules can do is help people who are well-intentioned, but have limited levels of skill, patience, or system mastery make better decisions. We don't have pre-written monster stats because it's impossible to create your own monsters, we have them because we think that having established challenges makes it easier to run the game, and that even if you are going to create your own monsters, having examples makes that easier.

That is not why there are monster stats though....

Monsters have stats for new DMs, below average DMs and "don't have enough time" DMs to use.....and maybe most of all: To sell more monster books :)

A lot of DMs, once they get to the average level of DM skill make their own monsters.

Once again, this is nonsense. Wanting the world to behave in predictable, consistent ways is not only right, it is a necessary precondition to effective roleplay. If the results of your actions aren't consistent, you can't make informed decisions, which is necessary to effectively answer "what would my character do".

Except predictable and consistent make no sense for an RPG. And if your "predicting" things in an RPG....you are metagaming too. You think it's a good thing when you "predict remember" all the game mechanics about something and then use it to your characters advantage in the game?

And how do you get "consistent" from a game with infinity built right in? Like if a character climbs a small apple tree (DC 10) then you "consistently" expect all trees in the game to be (DC 10)?

Oh no! A player cares about the game, and wants to understand how things work. I can only assume they will use this knowledge for evil, perhaps by adapting their plan to suit the particular circumstances they face. Clearly, they should be kicked out of the group for refusing to "go along".

Well, use the knowledge to metagame and get an unfair advantage.

Look if a player wants to know more about the game rules or understand anything better, they are free to read the rules. That is how it's done.

[Kesnit]

this seems very convenient. his monster was moved away from you because it was misplaced, but you were not allowed to be repositioned accordingly.

I made plenty of mistakes at my table (as everyone else, i'm sure), including a pc dead from a spell because we miscalculated the saving throw modifier and another pc not dead from a spell because we wrongly assumed that implosion would be stopped by death ward, but the retcon has never been done out of convenience.

How many times did you discover the mistake in the very round it happened? It would not have been as big a deal if the mistake had been discovered after the combat was resolved. In the example I gave, the monster moved right after my PCs turn. No one else had acted, so the retcon would have changed no other PC or NPC actions. The monster would have still been able to try to move, but I would have been able to attempt the lockdown. If I'd failed, combat would have proceeded as it did in reality. If I succeeded, who knows what would have happened?

This showcases a big shift in the Gamer Culture: The Hostile Player. Yes, again they have been around from day one, but they have slowly grown to a large number.

Just look at the idea that the DM must provide "context" to the players. That some how the DM must stop the game and explain everything to the players, likely taking hours. It is an impossible standard to hold a DM too.

Who said anything about hours? Giving the players a summary at the start of a campaign makes more sense than leaving them drifting. Wouldn't it be better to give the players some idea of the world from the start, rather than leave them drifting and with possibly erroneous assumptions?

I would also point out that PCs live in the world and would be expected to know some about how the world works. Of course they aren't all going to know everything, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for an arcane caster who has spent the maximum points possible in Know (Arcane), or a Bard with Bardic Knowledge, to not at least have a chance to know about a magical item.

And if your just talking about a pointless quick bit where the DM says "magic can do anything", well that is pointless.

No, I was talking about a skill check.

And if your talking about where the DM specifically give away everything in the game to ruin it, well that ruins the game.

Who said anything about the DM giving away everything? I am talking about a specific circumstance where a specific event occurred to the PCs.

When the hostile player forces the DM to say "sigh, bad magic itmes that kill you have a white skull on them",

Know (Arcane) or Bardic Knowledge would tell you those things. It's possible no one had applicable skills or they tried and failed their rolls. At least the PCs would have had a chance.

then an hour later a player finds a sword with a white skull on it they leap up and say "Ha, DM I don't touch the sword, thanks for warning me about it!" .

Fighter: Hey, look at this cool sword the deathknight dropped.
Bard (rolling and succeeding on Bardic Knowledge): WAIT! I remember a ballad about a sword like that. According to the ballads, the sword of a deathknight can only be used by Evil. You are not Evil and I am not sure what that sword would do to you.

Again, this is NOT the DM just giving away information. This is using IC knowledge.

The chance to know is even worse: should each character roll to see if they know everything about everything in the whole game world?

In a circumstance in which it is likely that a PC would know the information (even if the player does not), there is no reason for the DM to not tell the player to roll the applicable skill. If the roll fails, the PC doesn't know it and so there is no reason for the DM to reveal anything. But at least the player had a chance to know and act on what their PC could know.

And even if the DM did such things, to whatever level makes the hostile players happy, there is still a good chance that the players still might have bad things happen to their characters.

There is a difference between "I failed the roll and so my PC doesn't know something" and "the DM arbitrarily decided my PC doesn't know something." Both can lead to something bad happening to the PC. But in the first, there was some player agency; there was a chance that the PC would know what to do and therefore avoid the bad thing. In the second, the DM decided that the bad thing was going to happen regardless of that the PCs did or didn't do.

They did try to research it. They just researched the wrong thing.

That was part of the context, and addressed one of the questions I asked. Yes, the PCs did have a chance to find out what happened. They failed, but they had the chance to try. That is very different from the DM just deciding the bad thing happened because it happened.

or as a cleric's acolyte or magic-user's apprentice.

Either one of those could possible have known about magical items from their studies.

The idea came entirely from the player with the ex-paladin PC.

And that was the other point that was not clear in the original story. Maybe I misread it (very possibly), but it seemed to me that the ex-paladin was an NPC created by the DM to get the party out of wherever they were turned to stone and back to the temple and the clerics.

[King of Nowhere]

The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?

no no no, that's not what i mean by consistent.
consistent does not mean "always the same", but that there is an underlying logic.
it means that if bribing this guard is higher dc, it is because of this guard's personality. if climbing this wall is harder, it means this wall is different from the previous one.
in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified

[Zarrgon]

in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

But just about all the time the PLAYERS will have to put in the HUGE concentrated effort to discover all that related information. Players that want to know all that information HAVE to play the information mini game.

Though many players refuse to do that. They just automatiacly whine and complain the game is not "fair" or "consistent" whenever they get a DC they don't like.

you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified

This might be another c0lutre difference: But I sure don't think "there should always be a chance", because sometimes there is no chance.

Yes, only a bad or jerk DM would say "nobody can bribe a guard in the whole world". But then you don't want to go to the other extreme that "any guard the PCs come across just so happens to be that one might be a chance to bribe guard..every single time.

In a good game this would be a vase by case basis and that some groups WILL have no guards to bribe or very very few.

So how is saying: In a worldwide sense some guards can never be bribed and some guards can always be bribed...but most guards fall in the middle where they general won't take a bribe unless there are special unique circumstances that change things. As a player you must find such guards and also figure out each ones unique special circumstances.

[Pex]

You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.



You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.

5E doesn't. Since this Forum is about RPGs in general it's not as relevant to many specific RPGs, but it is relevant to the philosophy of what an RPG should provide. It's a common debate in the 5E SubForum. Yes, I do think it's necessary. That's the debate.

The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?




This touches on both my Player Acceptance and Hostile Player points.

One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

The problem is that the player might not be able to figure out the DC AND the character might not be able to roll to know or rolls and fails. So what then? Does the player just accept the that DC is X, but they don't know why? Do they whine and cry and try and force the DM to tell then the secret of the DC? Do they turn around and attack the game rules because their character does not know something? Do they ever get to "accept it and move on"?

And the Hostile Player is just down right crazy as they sit there and say "everything the DM does is against me!"

In 5E:

It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.

That's a bit of a strawman because Pex didn't say that all stone walls should have the same DC. He doesn't know what the baseline assumption of the game is for any particular wall and would like to know what the people who wrote the game intended beyond "DM makes up a random number".

You can default to 15 because that's the number in the middle and therefore the normal/average DC. You could want the PCs to be extra heroic and make it automatic. You could have a bad back and make it 21 because climbing is hard (yes, I played with that guy). And I could DM an AL game and make all rolls to talk to NPCs 21+1d4 becausr convincing people is hard to do.

To be fair I did. I want generic stone walls to have a set DC, but I'm willing to accept the DC being different when it's not a generic stone wall. Precisely because the DC is not the same I know there's something special about that wall. It is then not a generic stone wall, and I can investigate why if I care at that particular moment. It's not a generic stone wall because the DM specifically made it so for a reason.

A generic stone wall is scenery. It's there because it's part of a building, city wall, or dungeon. The DM didn't specifically place the stone wall for a reason; it just exists. The DC not being the same is because the DM made a stone wall exist on purpose that's not generic scenery. It's the means for which the player learns his character notices it's not a generic stone wall and can investigate why if it matters to the player.

The player who complains first accusing the DM is being a jerk. That's a metagame problem that doesn't negate the wanting of DC guidelines. Likewise, the DM who sets the DC at 22 at the spur of the moment just because he felt like it but it really is just a generic stone wall is being flippant and I'm more likely to assess the DM is being a jerk. In the unusual case it's not a generic stone wall but the DC is 20 anyway giving no clue or reason for the PC to investigate is odd as in why or what's the point? If the clue to investigate the wall comes later as part of adventure plot point, fine. Here I mean no clue is ever given, and it's not relevant to anything. It's all in the DM's head or adventure notes it's not a generic stone wall and has no affect on the game. Fine I guess since it doesn't impact anything. Hmm. I suppose if the stone wall was from a Wall of Stone spell a spellcaster placed there for a reason is logical, but that could still mean it's a relevant plot point to be discovered later. If it's never relevant while the DC is the same as a generic stone wall does it really matter? Eh, that's getting very situational not important to the point.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

no no no, that's not what i mean by consistent.
consistent does not mean "always the same", but that there is an underlying logic.
it means that if bribing this guard is higher dc, it is because of this guard's personality. if climbing this wall is harder, it means this wall is different from the previous one.
in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified

And then ones every so often there will be a check that's hard for meta reasons. The DM really wants the players to enter through the door so he can do his big reveal scene or close the door and trap them later, so this particular wall/window has a break DC of "what did you roll again? It's 2 higher than that." This is unfair, and comes about because the DM did not plan for every single options the PC's could try and/or is not willing to improvise around their actions in these circumstances. This tool should be avoided when ever possible. But, if this starts looking like favoritism ("the DM is against me") then there's probably an underlying OOC problem somewhere.

[EggKookoo]

I found some footage of a player working out the precise DC for a task in 5e. You can see right around the 0:57 mark where the dice are rolled.

[NorthernPhoenix]

It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.

That's an interesting comparison, because those are all player-related things. Enemy AC can be anything, Enemy longswords can do variable damage, and enemy spells can do literally anything. These work the same as the variable DC. The game is set up so that players have a set list of tools they use to interact with a infinitely variable world. Those are the "rules". To circle back to the thread, it's the culture of the game (as discussed, in and informed by, the rulebook) that controls the fairness of the obstacles players face and their expected level of success.

[EggKookoo]

That's an interesting comparison, because those are all player-related things. Enemy AC can be anything, Enemy longswords can do variable damage, and enemy spells can do literally anything. These work the same as the variable DC.

And that encounter your 3rd level party runs into? It could be CR 3. It could be CR 2. It could be CR 4. The DMG offers some guidance on how many hard or medium encounters a typical party might be able to handle in an adventuring day. But it certainly doesn't provide anything like a formula or a way to make it consistent. And reading the sections on encounter creation and balance, it becomes clear that different encounter compositions can have wildly different outcomes, even if their CRs are the same.

[kyoryu]

5E doesn't. Since this Forum is about RPGs in general it's not as relevant to many specific RPGs, but it is relevant to the philosophy of what an RPG should provide. It's a common debate in the 5E SubForum. Yes, I do think it's necessary. That's the debate.

PHB, page 174. Gives DCs for tasks ranging from "very easy" to "nearly impossible".

[Pex]

PHB, page 174. Gives DCs for tasks ranging from "very easy" to "nearly impossible".

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

It might help to at least within a single campaign try to add some real world references. Something like 10 = hard for an untrained person (baking a cake, performing a cartwheel), 15 = hard for a trained person (calming a runaway horse, cutting down a full sized tree), 20 = hard for a world renowned specialist (an Olympic level sports feat, cracking the Enigma code) etc.

It's still not very accurate. Climbing a wall is probably somewhere around 15, it's a thing that can be done but you don't see it everyday. But personal experience and even just what kind of wall you're imagining can still vary it quite a bit. But it's better that nothing.

On the flip side there are two problems with it. It's immersion breaking, because you're specifically basing this on real world difficulty (because we don't have a good reference for how difficult things should be for a D&D character, which is why the list in the PHB didn't help). And it fails to provide reference for anything D&D characters can do that we simply can't. And I don't even mean the superhuman post-Olympian stuff like "lifting a horse above your head", should that be a 21 or a 30? I'm thinking more like "calming a horse that is being mind controlled by a bad guy" (although you might be tempted to use the spell save DC there) or "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" (is that like rock? What kind of rock? Is it more biological? Can it even be carved? Is this too cruel to even consider?)

I think a lot of DM's already have some kind of system like this in their head, but for those that don't it might be a good addition to the rules as written.

[Luccan]

It might help to at least within a single campaign try to add some real world references. Something like 10 = hard for an untrained person (baking a cake, performing a cartwheel), 15 = hard for a trained person (calming a runaway horse, cutting down a full sized tree), 20 = hard for a world renowned specialist (an Olympic level sports feat, cracking the Enigma code) etc.

It's still not very accurate. Climbing a wall is probably somewhere around 15, it's a thing that can be done but you don't see it everyday. But personal experience and even just what kind of wall you're imagining can still vary it quite a bit. But it's better that nothing.

On the flip side there are two problems with it. It's immersion breaking, because you're specifically basing this on real world difficulty (because we don't have a good reference for how difficult things should be for a D&D character, which is why the list in the PHB didn't help). And it fails to provide reference for anything D&D characters can do that we simply can't. And I don't even mean the superhuman post-Olympian stuff like "lifting a horse above your head", should that be a 21 or a 30? I'm thinking more like "calming a horse that is being mind controlled by a bad guy" (although you might be tempted to use the spell save DC there) or "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" (is that like rock? What kind of rock? Is it more biological? Can it even be carved? Is this too cruel to even consider?)

I think a lot of DM's already have some kind of system like this in their head, but for those that don't it might be a good addition to the rules as written.

I'd certainly like to see what the DC for "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" is in any edition of DnD. Because I know there isn't an example DC for that in 3e. I mean I guess you could look at provided numbers and extrapolate how difficult you think it should be, but that's apparently wrong when 5e does it with a simpler system, so I can't imagine it's acceptable when 3e does it.

[EggKookoo]

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

Which is, of course, all true for 3e as well. I'm glad we've been having this discussion. I've been finding some great nuggets in the 3e DMG. Check this out:

"When modifying either the roll or the DC, you don't need to tell the players that you are doing so. In fact, in many case, you should not tell them."

And when discussing using alternate saving throws (using unusual ability scores for saves, like Wisdom-based Fort):

"Remember that when you change the way a saving throw works in this fashion, you should dictate when the change comes into play -- it's not up to the player to make this sort of decision. Players may try to rationalize why they should get to use their best ability score modifier on a saving throw that doesn't normally use that ability, but you shouldn't allow this sort of rule change unless you happen to agree with it."

In the first chapter of the DMG:

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge."

"Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Dang, 3e!

Now, it does also say this:

"Good DMs know not to change or overturn an existing rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't grow dissatisfied."

Which is correct, I believe, and I think most of us do. I don't think any of us are arguing that DMs (in 5e or whatever) should be able to set DCs willy-nilly without some kind of pushback. But at the same time, if an "official" DC is 12 and I set it to 17 because that just seems more right for my game, I'm acting within the bounds laid out by the third edition DMG, let alone the 5th.

[kyoryu]

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

Which stone wall?

Spoiler: big images

Show

Are there handholds? Ledges? Windows? Other things to hold onto?

Can you imagine in your head a stone wall that is trivial to climb? How about one that's "impossible" (I mean there's a DC so it's clearly possible)? I can imagine either.

So if a GM tells me that the wall is <x> difficulty to climb, I simply accept that (note bit about accepting or not accepting earlier) and adjust my mental image to match. If another GM tells me that a stone wall is <y> difficulty, then okay. It's not the same stone wall unless we're literally playing the same published adventure.

Again, if you like having the world defined to the point where you know that "wall, stone" has a specific DC, cool on you! But I don't think that it's necessarily logical to assume all stone walls are similar enough that a "standard" DC for stone walls is inherently the best choice, or that not having one places your game into "mother may I" territory.

[Zarrgon]

In 5E:

It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.

But none of that happens, right? There are always modifier. Sure you can every generic vague thing has the same base line, but adding in modifiers will always change it. Every vague generic sword starts out at the base 1d8, then applying all the modifiers present. And by the same way all vague generic walls start out at base DC X, then applying all the modifiers present. So each sword will not do exactly the same damage and each wall won't have exactly the same DC: right from the start. They have the same base, but that is it.

And this only goes for a vague generic thing too. Once it is "Klags Sword of Doom" or the "Dark Walls of Castle Bone" you are not talking about anything generic anymore.

To be fair I did. I want generic stone walls to have a set DC, but I'm willing to accept the DC being different when it's not a generic stone wall. Precisely because the DC is not the same I know there's something special about that wall. It is then not a generic stone wall, and I can investigate why if I care at that particular moment. It's not a generic stone wall because the DM specifically made it so for a reason.

Ok, so you agree.

A generic stone wall is scenery. It's there because it's part of a building, city wall, or dungeon. The DM didn't specifically place the stone wall for a reason; it just exists. The DC not being the same is because the DM made a stone wall exist on purpose that's not generic scenery. It's the means for which the player learns his character notices it's not a generic stone wall and can investigate why if it matters to the player.

Well...if it's something a character will interact with...like a wall: It's Not Scenery.

The player who complains first accusing the DM is being a jerk. That's a metagame problem that doesn't negate the wanting of DC guidelines. Likewise, the DM who sets the DC at 22 at the spur of the moment just because he felt like it but it really is just a generic stone wall is being flippant and I'm more likely to assess the DM is being a jerk. In the unusual case it's not a generic stone wall but the DC is 20 anyway giving no clue or reason for the PC to investigate is odd as in why or what's the point? If the clue to investigate the wall comes later as part of adventure plot point, fine. Here I mean no clue is ever given, and it's not relevant to anything. It's all in the DM's head or adventure notes it's not a generic stone wall and has no affect on the game. Fine I guess since it doesn't impact anything. Hmm. I suppose if the stone wall was from a Wall of Stone spell a spellcaster placed there for a reason is logical, but that could still mean it's a relevant plot point to be discovered later. If it's never relevant while the DC is the same as a generic stone wall does it really matter? Eh, that's getting very situational not important to the point.

Well, it is always best for a DM to be intelligent, quick thinking, clever and have deep rules and deep system mastery. They the DM can "just make" any thing any DC and make it all "official". I will grant you the DM that is not any of the things I mentioned will make for a hard game when they just make up crazy stuff and numbers as they are clueless.

Though you are going over board saying that every wall that is not common has to be some massive game plot point. Really? You can't just accept an uncommon wall? Not saying that if you really felt you must you could go on a whole mini quest mini game JUST to find out why one particular wall section in one place has a DC of higher then common. Though you could also say "Well the Dark Stone Walls of Castle Doom are of course not common walls...and you know, just accept it. But you don't need to pause the game for your mini quest.

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

But this is the big foundation that RPGS are built on: It is impossible to make rules that cover everything for a complex game, so games like D&D have a DM to make a on site case by case call.

The only other option is to play a lite rules simple game like "easy DCs are 10 and hard DCs are 20, and every single DC in this game must only ever be 10 or 20."

I'd certainly like to see what the DC for "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" is in any edition of DnD. Because I know there isn't an example DC for that in 3e. I mean I guess you could look at provided numbers and extrapolate how difficult you think it should be, but that's apparently wrong when 5e does it with a simpler system, so I can't imagine it's acceptable when 3e does it.

This is a perfect example as to why DMs exist: to make calls and rulings on something like this.

Even if you had a 1,000 page Stone-carving Skill DC Rule book and you went to chapter six "carving statues" you might still beunable to find an exact DC for "carving a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" .

[Jay R]

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard?

Am I the only one here who has climbed several stone walls? Or even looked at several stone walls? Some are trivial, some are easy, some are difficult, and some are pretty much impossible. The same wall can be very hard in one place and trivially easy ten feet over.

"Stone wall" is a generic phrase. There is not a single kind of stone wall. So "climbing a stone wall" cannot have a single standard DC.

IThat's DM whim.

That's a negative way to put it. But I can express the same content without the negativity, like this:

That's a hard judgment call that DMs have to make. That call will be made based on both the DM's mental image of that particular wall, and on the needs of the scenario.

I have had many DMs in the last 45 years, but I don't think I've ever had one who would consider that a call based on whim, rather than on a desire to create an immersive and interesting world.

One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

That's correct; they will. But that's because one DM is thinking of a ten foot pile of stone, another is thinking of twenty feet of raw stones held by mortar, and a third has in mind thirty feet of carefully carved stone blocks with no crevices. These should have wildly different DCs, because they are wildly different tasks.

Hadrian's Wall has a DC of 5 -- if that. The Great Wall of China has a DC of maybe 20. Some castle walls have a DC of 30 or more. And each one is a "stone wall".

Coming up for a single DC for climbing a stone wall is like trying to find the CR for a unit of five warriors, without knowing if they are 1st level or 20th.

That's the problem.

That's the difference between different walls.

I don't see that there is a problem in having one stone wall in one universe be harder to climb than another stone wall in another universe -- especially given that a stone wall in our own world can be much harder to climb than another.

[kyoryu]

Well, it is always best for a DM to be intelligent, quick thinking, clever and have deep rules and deep system mastery. They the DM can "just make" any thing any DC and make it all "official". I will grant you the DM that is not any of the things I mentioned will make for a hard game when they just make up crazy stuff and numbers as they are clueless.

Though you are going over board saying that every wall that is not common has to be some massive game plot point. Really? You can't just accept an uncommon wall? Not saying that if you really felt you must you could go on a whole mini quest mini game JUST to find out why one particular wall section in one place has a DC of higher then common. Though you could also say "Well the Dark Stone Walls of Castle Doom are of course not common walls...and you know, just accept it. But you don't need to pause the game for your mini quest.

Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

If the GM describes the wall in such a way that it doesn't make sense with the given DC, then I ask.

GM: "Okay, you see a rough stone wall here. DC 25 to climb."
Me: "25? really? That seems pretty high for a wall that you've described as rough, given that other walls have been a lot easier."

Then one of:
GM: "those walls hand a lot more handholds and windows and stuff to use to climb the wall. And this wall may be rough and easy to grab onto, but as soon as you do you see it's in poor repair and is crumbling. It's also a lot higher. So the getting to the top of it without getting messed up by the crumbling bits is going to be really tough."

- or -

GM: "You know what? You're right. It should probably be more like a DC 15."

I see little value in forcing the GM to go through and come up with all of the individual modifiers that would be required to give the DC of 25. "Well, yeah, it's 15 for the base DC. Another +5 because it's crumbling. +2 for lack of windows and features. +3 for height between 20' and 30'" That just seems tedious and for little value.

Am I the only one here who has climbed several stone walls? Or even looked at several stone walls? Some are trivial, some are easy, some are difficult, and some are pretty much impossible. The same wall can be very hard in one place and trivially easy ten feet over.

I posted two a couple of replies up.

[Unavenger]

Are there handholds? Ledges? Windows? Other things to hold onto?

According to the 3.5 SRD, the wall is very rough if it's a DC 10 wall, a very rough natural rock surface (or about as rough as one) if it's DC 15, uneven and typical of a dungeon wall if it's DC 20, as rough as your average natural rock surface or a brick wall if it's DC 25, and perfectly smooth, flat and vertical if it's DC -.

According to the 5e SRD, FNORD.

[kyoryu]

According to the 3.5 SRD, the wall is very rough if it's a DC 10 wall, a very rough natural rock surface (or about as rough as one) if it's DC 15, uneven and typical of a dungeon wall if it's DC 20, as rough as your average natural rock surface or a brick wall if it's DC 25, and perfectly smooth, flat and vertical if it's DC -.

According to the 5e SRD, FNORD.

I mean, that's not entirely true. It just ties the DCs to adjectives rather than specific types of wall.

If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

[Unavenger]

I mean, that's not entirely true. It just ties the DCs to adjectives rather than specific types of wall.

If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

I mean, I've had three different DMs call what is functionally the same wall "No check", "DC 10" and "DC 15", which is a fairly vast range for a single wall and basically makes the creation of a skill-based character heavily dependent on who's running the game and occasionally what mood they're in that day. I don't see how you can consider a lack of rules for something (apart from the fairly banal observation that a DC 30 check is almost impossible to make, which I could have told you just by looking at the stat bonuses available to PCs) to be a feature. It's more a lack of feature.

[Saint-Just]

If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

Again, even if there isn't a huge variation in DCs, large variation still can be immersion-breaking and make it hard to build characters. See above q. trees. In all three games DMs did not assign individual DCs to individual trees (and given the granularity of D&D I do not believe that trees of the same species and same size category warrant individual DCs). DMs did assign generic DCs but those generic DCs has been vastly different (from 0 to 20).

Many cities (esp. not 100% realistic medieval cities but more kitchensinky cities typical of D&D) would have enough examples of "wall, brick, no handholds, in good repair". So can my 2nd-level rogue scale it by taking 20? Most of the time mundane skills are not supposed to vary between worlds (like reality, unless noted) and yet without examples provided for DM in the book they would inevitably vary.

Hadrian's Wall has a DC of 5 -- if that. The Great Wall of China has a DC of maybe 20. Some castle walls have a DC of 30 or more. And each one is a "stone wall".

Coming up for a single DC for climbing a stone wall is like trying to find the CR for a unit of five warriors, without knowing if they are 1st level or 20th.

You say so and I believe that you are trying to honestly assign DCs to the existing walls. Someone other with slightly less experience may also try to assign DCs to the same walls (again, in unprejudiced manner, not because they want PCs to succeed\fail) and yet give Hadrian's wall DC 10 and Great Wall of China DC 15. Again - trees.



To the both of you - yes, DM can vary target numbers if they want to. But many people do play by the book, especially in such relatively uncontroversial area as climb DCs. If people use house rules in 3.x they are more likely to a) explicitly warn about it, b) know at least a little bit about climbing\diving\lockpicking\etc. 5e forces every DM to invent DCs, there is no fallback position available for those who don't know enough about whatever rules are supposed to cover.

[patchyman]

You could. I imagine many, even most, of the people in this thread could. But that's not a representative sample of DMs. The rules don't exist solely for people who spend a significant fraction of their free time arguing about D&D on the internet. They also exist for the guy who picked up D&D because he thought Stranger Things was cool. And that guy does not have the knowledge or the skill to be able to effectively work up a list of DCs, or a set of encounter guidelines. So we rely on professional game designers to do that for us, because we expect that a team of experts who have several years to work on a production will produce better outcomes than one guy who's trying to make up an answer fast enough that the game keeps moving.

This is backwards.

The guy who picked up D&D doesn’t have a problem adjudicating DCs. He checks the PHB index: “difficulty classes, table p. 174”. Easy 10, Medium 15, Hard 20, then he picks one. His players succeed or fail. Easy.

It is people who play in multiple games (like Pex) or people who tend to obsess over minutiae (like the type of people who hang out in online fora, myself included), who are more likely to have issues.

[EggKookoo]

Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

We do this with other aspects of the game anyway. Monster A has 10 hit points. Monster B has 30. When was the last time a DM described the in-fiction justifications for that? Especially before a fight starts. And "B took less damage during the fight" isn't really a good example. It's not any different from trying to climb the wall to find out how hard it is.

Earlier, an example came up of a longsword always dealing 1d8 when used in one hand (and medium-sized, I assume). But one hit from that longsword hurts a creature with 8 HP a lot more than it hurts the creature with 80 HP. Yet both attacks deal the same damage. People don't think abstract mechanics be like it is, but it do!